I appreciate your response and D99's as well ...

I appreciate your response and D99's as well ...
by CJC (2014-11-08 11:48:06)

In reply to: Unacceptable of course posted by Nigeltufnel

Post Reply Return to Olympic

I read this page fairly consistently, but rarely post as I don't think I have much to add.

I'm generally aware that Melanzana has posted often about Coyne's treatment. My post was not to defend his position there, but to wonder why Swarbrick felt it proper to make that move while not addressing more promptly or effectively the volleyball program.

I think it's fair and appropriate to wonder whether teams and coaches throughout the program are being held to consistent standards. That doesn't necessarily mean "identically," whatever that would even mean. So I do appreciate your thoughts about the trajectory of the lacrosse program against the trajectory of the sport.

That provides useful information in attempting to evaluate the Coyne decision. It doesn't help much in trying to understand the Brown situation, especially given her earlier success at Notre Dame. Her long run of NCAA appearances preceding the current drought suggests a similar trajectory of Notre Dame's program being passed by.

I'm also mindful of the reality that D99 and others have pointed out. Given our stated claim of competing for championships in all sports, given the downward trajectory of that program and given the decision that Coyne's trajectory was unacceptable, somebody's got some explaining to do.

There are a lot of talented communications specialists in the world. The price for retaining one shouldn't be at the expense of compromising our obligation to our volleyball student-athletes.

I don't disagree with much of what you say

There is a stronger case now for a change of direction in the VB program then there was for lacrosse 2-3 years ago. In that regard the order of events is surprising.

I do however take issue with a suggestion (and not saying you are suggesting this but others have hinted) that Coyne had the program poised for greatness as evidenced by her early success and final four appearance and that she just needed more time. She did do a good job bringing the program up to prominence from its inception but beyond that I think it was a program that was losing ground on the field at not an insignificant pace. The fact that no other olympic coach had been removed prior to that does not make the move an incorrect one. In the words of Jeremy Folley that which needs to be done eventually should be done immediately.

I don't think Swarbrick's move was incorrect even others think it may be been misguided and poorly handled and even if there were less deserving coaches that have been retained prior to and since then.